Lead can be extremely damaging to developing brains—especially in utero and many commentators (including this judge) note that “There is no safe level of lead, or tobacco”
No law can be written proclaiming a standard of zero. As measurement technology develops, the notion of “undetectable” gets smaller and smaller. Enforcement must always be based around a measurable standard.
More than that, “no safe level” cannot possibly be applied in any other real life situation. For example, under a regime of “no safe level,” no pharmaceutical drug could exist, as nearly every drug has some dangerous side effect that could affect one out of a million people.
People drive all the time, yet driving is far from 100% safe. Should parents stop allowing their kids to participate in sports given the very real possibility of injury?
The only appropriate use of “no safe level” would be in this sentence: There is no safe level of the public being exposed to any commentary that includes “no safe level.”
As always, good science plus common sense equals good public policy. Here, there is a serious lack of both.
If a product is legally available for sale, a consumer should be able to visually identify what it is they are intending to legally purchase - before the sale.
Enacting legislation that enforces a game of guess the brand with your local retailer is petty and a complete mis-interpretation of the spirit of the charter. This decision, with support of the government and it's non-governmental…